processes in ways we think refl ect systemic ethical-postures and values. As part of this, we are developing a

feedback process that aims to be timely, inclusive, clear in its aims, neutral and consistent. We have used the ‘skills for care’ framework to think of these aspects of evaluation (Evaluation Guide for Skills for Care Staff 31.10.11). To that end, we will use it in the following ways: • The evaluation will be sent to you after completion of accreditation and when the outcome is fi nalised

• Be inclusive –we ask you to send it to all members of your team or students who participated in the CRED process of accreditation

• That CRED is clear about the aims of the evaluation, which is to improve CRED process and demonstrating the impact of CRED process on course practices and development

• Demonstrate independence/neutrality through a standardised form sent after the visit and that could also be completed online.

• The information, including appreciative feedback and news of diff erence about how CRED can undertake its processes

and infl uence course development, will be taken in to account in telephone conversations and at face-to-face meetings of CRED and in the induction of new panellists and committee members.

Coordinating contexts for refl exive accreditations

With these practices, we are drawing

upon Anderson’s idea of collaborative- learning communities (1999, 2007). Our thinking in this is that this dialogical- learning community can afford a context in accreditations in which we can learn together through being reflexive about our understandings and experiences at levels of both content and process. In this way, we hope to move from representational to relational. It gives us an opportunity to bring together the AFT trainings guidance (the Red and Blue Books), to be critically reflective about course delivery and to construct co- ordination between course delivery and professional quality-standards. Putting these together into a reflexive framework, accreditations provide a context for bringing AFTs Red and Blue Books as a discourse of professional standards

together within a context of reflection- on-action (Schön ,1991) as courses prepare evidence and present it to CRED panellists. The critical reflection that emerges through dialogues can scaffold both the evolution of course delivery and the evolution of CRED’s collaborative practices in the context of professional standards. This may assist us to achieve together a co-ordination and coherence in the relationship between these two contexts in the local and unique setting of each accreditation. The diagram seeks to capture the inter-subjective process involved in moving towards reflexive accreditation.

Conclusion The practices described reflect our

intentions for accreditation processes which can speak of our hopes for a connected community of practitioners in CRED, course teams, students and ultimately people we work with as family therapists and systemic practitioners. As practices, they bring to life our commitment to the kind of educational community that can restore and enrich connections between accreditation and development and enable us all to embrace “a world of knowing that is always subject to change and challenge” (bell hooks, 2003, p. 92).